Sure, if they can prove it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question for Atheists...
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Sure, if they can prove it.
I mean it cannot be physically detected by any means whatsoever.
Sure, empty is a set of objects. God is nothing. More word salad.
Because existing things can be sensed and studied, unlike imaginary things, like gods.
Where did I claim that? No where, exactly.
As a concept, not as material. It's perfect for all the gods in human history since non-existing things need nowhere to hang out.
Notice how you often assert this "problem" but never explain HOW there is any actual problem, nor what is better. You like your woowoo belief, which is fine, but critical thinkers have no use for that illusion.
Well, philosophical questions aren't always honest or objective, and the answers don't have to follow any sort of test in reality. Such answers are "every man for himself".
More of your superior judgmentalism that you whip out when you feel insecure. You have no real option, you have no facts or coherent explanation, so make it personal.
Well it does get you upset. That suggests you know you're on the wrong side of these issues, but you are committed to religious thinking.
Then what? You wrote a sentence fragment and didn't complete your thought.
Of course we can detect solar raditaion on our skin. We can detect wind. We can feel electrical shock. All of these are material phenomenon. But can you detect demons? Angels, perhaps?
nPeace
Veteran Member
They don't have to. Try talking to a wall, and hopefully you'll understand why.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
nPeace
Veteran Member
Kindly don't add things if you don't mean them.
It's taken as part of the whole, and for me to ignore it, is to pick out parts... which is the same thing.
So, in future, it might be good to think carefully about what you post, read it back to yourself, and just admit you made a mistake.
What I normally do in a case like that, is strikeout the part that doesn't reflect what I wanted to say, if I believe someone read it.
Nothing.
I never did believe in it.
Cannot be? Cannot be Nakosis?
Try telling scientists that. Hint Hint.
If I did, they'd only try to disprove it.
They don't have to. Try talking to a wall, and hopefully you'll understand why.
No, they don't have to.
Only if they have any concern for the truth.
Otherwise they are free to believe in the magical world of Harry Potter or whatever else they'd prefer to believe in.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
Perhaps most people have been taught to believe and accept. Anyone who seeks truth or one that even questions will discover the flaws hidden in those beliefs that others are spreading. A gut reaction might be to reject anything coming from those sources.
It has never ever been about accepting and believing. It's about what IS. One who seeks must be open to all possibilities. Truth will not always be an agreeable thing.
I find it funny that so many can not conceive God exists because they find so many flaws in those religious beliefs, yet they base the possibility of God existing solely on those religious beliefs.
Do you want to find God or evidence of God? All you have to do is look around you. In a time-based causal universe nothing is being hidden. All the secrets of God and the universe stare us all in the face.
An Action of God: God doesn't give knowledge out. God places knowledge around us all. It waits to be Discovered. How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? The knowledge was around us all the time. Wisdom is acquired along the journey to acquire knowledge.
So it all comes down to Choosing. What do you really seek? Are you true to yourself? Do you choose Believing and Accepting? Do you choose to convince others that by believing, accepting and spreading your religion that you are special or good? Do you choose to prove others that their beliefs are wrong? Do you choose to convince others of your intelligence by proving others are wrong? There are an infinite number of choices and variations of choices. What is it you choose and why?
I find very few really seek God. That is perfectly ok. It has never ever been about finding God, believing nor accepting. It's about Choosing, Learning, and Growing. Each person's journey is in their hands with choosing. In time, each will Discover what those best choices really are. Choosing is far too important to allow others to do it for you.
I will place Truth in the world, however I will never make demands because the greatest learning for everyone comes from the results of one's own free choices.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
Choose, Live, Learn, and Love!!! Is it really all that hard??
You have all my Love and Kindness!!
Who is this you are talking about? It doesn't sound like atheists. Atheists understand that humans can, and do, believe in many irrational and non-factual ideas. God concepts tend to fall into this category. What happens is that believers have a difficult time explaining why thei believe in a god at all/ they cite evidence, but the evidence tends to be invalid or so subjective that it's dismissed by critical thinkers.
Who assesses the possibilities of Gods existing? We critical thinkers read and hear believers make claims but none I have seen formulate any possibility from it.
This is the typical useless plea by believers. Is this the best you can do? Look around? The ONLY way a believer can conclude any God exists by looking around is by assuming a God exists. That's it, no evidence needed, just the assumption.
The funny thing is that child cancers and flesh eating bacteria is part of what we see by looking around, and believers can't explain what this say about God. God killing little kids with cancer. Explain this evidence.
Almost as if a God doesn't exist at all. Is it a shy God, or is God like a 5 year old?
Those who seek truth won't assume what they desire to be what's found, like God existing. Those who seek with an idea of what they will find will tend to confirm their desires, and it isn't genuine, and not a finding of truth. Manye believers really just want to find comfort and emotional security, and they find that in religious belief. And the reward of comfort reinforces the belief. It is a trap and habit of belief.
If you think a God exists you will find out you're right. Not because you have truth, but because you want to control your emotional security, and uncertainty requires courage and inner strength.
Results depend on the mental tools and introspection a person has. The illusion of making "free choices" is how many believers get trapped, becasue they don;t understand their subconscious motives to accept and adopt the religious ideas of those around them.
I think I was annoyed that I did.
I became an engineer which requires you to develop critical thinking skills.
Your mind starts to think differently when you have to justify your designs/costs to the bean counters.
It occurred to me over a long period of time until it was obvious. I was a little upset with myself that it wasn't obvious to me before.
Some said they simply "grew-up". Whatever that means, apparently that doesn't happen with everybody.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I read that, but I think all what the universe contains is within the film and nothing within the sphere (not even space).
What we started with, energy, has expanded in these 13.78 billion years with the speed of light. Nothing new is being created.
I would like to have more opinions on this from knowledgeable members.
"Dr Sheila Kanani explains: Picture yourself inside this balloon, living on its interior surface in a two-dimensional space. The balloon is the universe, and as more air is blown into it, you would see the space or surface area of the universe expanding and every point on its surface getting further and further away from one other."
Is the universe a bubble or balloon? | BBC Earth
The concept of space going on forever is a mind-boggling one, not least because our brains aren’t designed to cope with concepts such as infinity. But perhaps, because it’s forever expanding, it only appears to be infinite? This is one theory that physicists and planetary experts have put...
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
There are many things which we cannot see but there are ways to find about their presence, for example, Virtual Particles, Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
ppp
Well-Known Member
There aren't any sources. There is no bottom. All you are doing is tossing out persiflage to obscure that fact.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
One theory is that the universe will expand till the temperature at all points of the universe is 0 K, and then all activity will cease.
Other theories say that universe could start collapsing just as it expanded (Big Crunch). There are other theories as well.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, we know that we are talking to walls.They don't have to. Try talking to a wall, and hopefully you'll understand why.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Do we live in two-dimensional space?
It's just an analogy as most humans have difficulties to imagine four-dimensional space. If you can, then, yes, we are living on the three-dimensional surface of a bubble within four-dimensional space.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Nothing started with energy. Energy is always a property of something else. It can no more exist by itself than momentum or electric charge can. The 'm' in E = mc² refers to mass not matter and you can't have mass by itself either.
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
Matt Strassler [April 12, 2012] It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, a…
profmattstrassler.com
The rest of your post is about conjecture or hypothesis at best; not currently accepted science based on evidence. There is no shortage of ideas, the problem is testing any of them.
ETA: Having looked in more detail at the article you linked it's a bit confused. It looks like it was thrown together by somebody who doesn't really know what they're talking about. Very poor for the BBC. First we get this "So if you were to stop time, and therefore stop the expansion, the universe would then have a reachable end point or edge." but then goes on to well known the balloon analogy (that you quoted), but doesn't seem to get that the analogy is from the 2-d surface to 3-d space, and is supposed to show that there need not be any edge. It doesn't suggest that the universe is literally a 2-d surface. You're supposed to see that a 3-d space could be finite and edgeless just like the 2-d balloon surface.
Then there is stuff about the 'Big Crunch', which has pretty much been discarded as a possibility since the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. What's more, the previous article they linked, from New Scientist, actually says that and talks about the 'Big Rip' instead.
Last edited: